Skip to main content

Topic: [TOS #8, #10] "Previous MP3 decoder gave much better quality" (Read 1207 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • LiteForce
  • [*]
[TOS #8, #10] "Previous MP3 decoder gave much better quality"
Previous MP3 decoder (mpg123 if I correctly understood) gave a much better quality!!!

  • MattB
  • [*]
[TOS #8, #10] "Previous MP3 decoder gave much better quality"
Reply #1
Previous MP3 decoder (mpg123 if I correctly understood) gave a much better quality!!!

It did? Are you sure? I have not updated yet and was trying to decide. Maybe I will install the latest version in portable mode and compare.

This is why I was asking for some technical details, to know what prompted the change. After all, FFmpeg has been available for years now...

  • LiteForce
  • [*]
[TOS #8, #10] "Previous MP3 decoder gave much better quality"
Reply #2
While it only impressions. Slightly earlier I compared aurally the original and coded to best possible quality MP3 by latest Lame encoder with settings -b320 -q0 -ms and decode it by MAD, Apollo 37zz and Foobar decoder (mpg123 as far as know). Then I listen original and decoded WAV files. The Foobar decoder was closest to the original. I didn't do exact measurements - there is no sense. The author of Apollo did exact measurements, and nevertheless the result of its decoder isn't pleasant to me - it distorts a sound.
It is my method - probably it is incorrect, but probably it is right... How to check I don't know.
  • Last Edit: 30 December, 2012, 10:36:08 PM by LiteForce

  • db1989
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
[TOS #8, #10] "Previous MP3 decoder gave much better quality"
Reply #3
It is my method - probably it is incorrect, but probably it is right...

Probably A but also probably B? You can’t have both.

Hint: It’s incorrect. You are reporting a non–double-blind listening test, which is not objectively/scientifically valid and therefore is in violation of #8 of Hydrogenaudio’s terms of service, to which you agreed during registration. Claims without substantiation are not welcome, and neither is anti-objectivity fluff such as “I didn't do exact measurements - there is no sense.” There is perfect sense to requiring evidence for assertions. No one should be expected to believe something you or anyone else says on faith alone and without a way to test and/or analyse it for him/herself. This should apply to everything, and specifically to here, it applies when there is the risk that potentially untrue negative claims might defame a product (or programmer, or whatever) that does not deserve it.

Quote
How to check I don't know.

Do a proper test, as outlined at the above link and in other sources, some of which are linked from there. Until then, your unverifiable opinions about the new decoder are of no use to the forum.

Also, and again easily debunkable by a quick search and some basic attention to previous discussions, -ms will reduce quality and is a waste of space, and -q0 is also not recommended.
  • Last Edit: 30 December, 2012, 10:48:02 PM by db1989

  • LiteForce
  • [*]
[TOS #8, #10] "Previous MP3 decoder gave much better quality"
Reply #4

  • LiteForce
  • [*]
[TOS #8, #10] "Previous MP3 decoder gave much better quality"
Reply #5
Why the decoder was replaced - and all took it for absolute norm. And to show that it worse on quality it is necessary to do tests?! It would be desirable to see proofs of the author that the new decoder gives more quality or at least same quality...

  • db1989
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
[TOS #8, #10] "Previous MP3 decoder gave much better quality"
Reply #6
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

You’re the one making a claim; you provide evidence. Others do not have to prove that your claim is false: you have to prove that it is true. This is a transparent attempt to shift the boring work of providing evidence to someone else (how convenient!).